Subject:
|
Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:53:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
328 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > I wouldn't. At least not particularly. I suppose it would be reasonable to
> > donate to some organization that helped them find work. The housing market
> > could supply a place to live.
>
> And where do they get housed while they're waiting for a house to become
> available / be built.
First of all, there are tons of houses in the US that are going unused because
they don't meet the stringent safety laws that we take for granted. But they
are a 100% improvement over what these immigrants may be used to...and not
really dangerous. Further, there are many parts of the US (and Australia)
where living in tents is not a bizarre notion.
> > I'd advertise the address to which they had the option of sending donations • of
> > cash and I'd set up a collection service for blankets and clothing and stuff.
>
> Again, how effective do you think that would be with large numbers of people?
I don't know. I figure that such a system could carry some number of
refugees comfortably. Probably some number greater than that would show up.
So they wouldn't be as comfortable as they'd like. As the conditions got worse
and worse, they would have to make a decision about whether or not it was worth
coming here. I'm not talking about giving these people a free ride. I'm just
talking about affirming that they have a right to a place on this earth every
bit as much as _I_ do. For me to keep them from this place of prosperity that
I enjoy daily would be sheer evil.
> > > Or citizens who've been waiting years for a housing commision house?
> >
> > Everyone should be treated the same.
>
> That's just the problem. These people are forcing our government to treat them
> differently than the people who've gone through legal channels.
But if you did away with these "legal channels" then you could treat them all
the same.
> Part of the job of government in
> processing the applicants is to ensure there is sufficient accomodation.
I say it aint. (Though I realize that you're just telling it like it is.)
> If accomodation has been found for a refugee still not in Australia, then • suddenly
> a ship-load of others turn up un-announced, something has to give.
Let them decide what gives. You don't have to remove all risk from their
venture.
> We can only
> build and operate so many detention centres, so that accomodation suddenly
> disappears, and the refugee who's applied legally has to wait even longer. I
> don't think this is fair.
I don't think herding them into detention centers is fair either.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
| (...) So where do you draw the line? What is "safe for refugees"? What happens when (not if) a house deemed "safe enough" causes injury / death, and the nearest lawyer sues on their behalf? Who foots the bill (for either side)? And do you think (...) (23 years ago, 6-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
| (...) I just learned that Baltimore had a homesteading project whereby people could buy derelict houses from the city for $1 with the understanding that they would live in them and fix them up. I think that this would be a fantastic option for the (...) (23 years ago, 6-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Views on asylum seekers?
|
| (...) And where do they get housed while they're waiting for a house to become available / be built. Remember we're not talking 438 anymore, but maybe millions. And Australias problem isn't limited to 438 either - they've been coming here illegally (...) (23 years ago, 4-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
